Kotaku's RDR2 article states NPC's acts like NPC's and thats weird.

[Otter]

AnmolRed said:

Darashiva said:
Why is the intent difficult to understand? In the writer's opinion the NPC's in RDR2 feel out of place in the midst of the game's otherwise meticulous strive for realism. They come off as fake and puppet-like, while the rest of the game succeeds much better in its attempts at making the world around the player seem real. Basically, the NPC's feel like actors putting on a play, rather than real people, which stands out a lot from the rest of the game. I haven't played the game myself, so I can't really say much about the NPC's or the game's world, but the article is perfectly understandable to me.

But isn't that what a video gaga is? Who expects npcs to behave that realistically with today's tech? The articles main complaint seems to be that the NPC's are there only because of the 'player' and they only exist to serve the 'player' ,well isn't that the whole point of a game? 

i mean its a fair think piece, i disagree the notion thats it better to have no/fewer NPC's because then the world be accused of being barren. I think its more interesting looking at it of clash of technologies (comparing with your own experince) versus an inherent design fault like the writer is implying.